9 New Surprises in President Obama's Speech
Published September 09, 2009 @ 11:09PM PT
A week ago, before tonight’s presidential address before Congress was even confirmed, I asked if President Obama had anything new to say about health care reform. I asked it even knowing that in many ways, it was the wrong question. The reality was he didn’t need to say anything new -- all it needed to be was new for most of the country. All he needed to do was say it better.
Not that the content of the speech being mostly rehash is at all a bad thing. If you read this blog regularly, or even every-so-often, you’re far more deeply enmeshed in the contours of this debate than, I believe, most Americans are. Although Obama’s town halls have been televised, although there was the press conference dedicated to health care, and the night of Q&A on ABC, although there have been op-eds, and blog posts, and Web casts and radio interviews a-plenty, most people just haven’t had the time to follow it. As a result, not everyone knows that the uninsured aren’t just sad unfortunate folks completely unconnected to us, but that our skin is in that game as well, with at least $1,000 hidden cost for uncompensated care for those of us with insurance.
People may know about pre-existing conditions, but they haven’t heard the story of Robin Beaton, the Texas nurse whose acne years prior was used an excuse to drop her health insurance precisely when she needed it the most to fight breast cancer. People know costs are going up but don’t realize, as the president said, “Our health care problem is our deficit problem -- nothing else even comes close.”
And they don’t hear nearly enough, nowhere nearly enough about the moral deficit of not fixing health care reform: “That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.”
Health care reform doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not a good idea because it’s ideological or because the Obama plan is how anyone would build a system from scratch. It’s a good idea only to the extent that it solves an immediate problem. The structure of Obama’s speech was therefore elementary: you need to know the problem first, then you need to know how the solution relates to it, and then you need to be shown how all the stuff the media fixates on -- bipartisanship, “death panels,” illegal aliens, you name it -- how that doesn’t even relate to either the solution or the problem. Did Obama get a big enough audience or make a big enough impression to sway public opinion? Time will tell.
But since novelty is the spice of life, I have to share the nine things that I had legitimately not heard before, either from a policy or political perspective. Not all of them were positive, mind you, but I have to confess that the answer to the question of my earlier post -- does Obama have anything new to say about health care -- is yes.
- We’ve been talking about giving “subsidies” to those who cannot afford the full cost of premiums for a plan in the Exchange. The best re-branding of the day goes to calling them “tax credits” instead. Functionally, there’s really no difference. Politically, it helps play up a notion Obama sold well -- that the uninsured aren’t the poor, or those on “welfare.” As we know, 80% of the uninsured come from full-time working households. A “tax credit” sounds solidly middle-class for a feature that will actually only help the middle-class.
- The House bill and, to an unclear extent, the likely Senate Finance Committee bill would not open the Exchanges for the uninsured and small businesses to buy coverage in a one-stop shopping marketplace until 2013. Obama now proposes -- with a public nod to John McCain -- temporarily covering those with pre-existing conditions in “high risk pools.” By the way, this was a terrible idea in McCain’s plan, but there it was meant to be permanent. I’ll need to look through the actual proposal and re-assess whether it’s a better idea on a strictly temporary basis -- just until the Exchange is up and running. It’s certainly new!
- The president’s entire section on the public option made a lot of sense. Finally, after muddling through analogies of public and private competing against each other, he’s abandoned the FedEx vs. Post Office metaphor (which unintentionally suggested the public option would be an inferior product) and instead came up with private vs. public colleges. Much better!
- I’ll have to go back over Baucus’ proposal, but I think this is totally new as well: “And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.” That is a favorite recommendation from the Congressional Budget Office -- that if health care costs continue to rise, a provision will cut overall spending by a fraction of a percentage point automatically. It proves some deficit-fighting bona fides, but the over under until your Sarah Palin or your Betsy McCaughey writes an editorial equating this with rationing and killing seniors has to be 2 days or less.
- “And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.” Absolutely true in the plans on the table, and about time someone said it.
- “So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.” This is the part that Democrats never do. It’s not enough for Democrats to stir up the ghost of LBJ. Rep. Paul Ryan, co-author of the Patients Choice Act, proposed an alternative budget that would have disbanded Medicare and funneled its beneficiaries into private insurance by a voucher system into private insurance. Most Republicans in Congress voted against postponing a draconian 20% cut to physician fees in Medicare across the board -- the filibuster was only broken by a sick Ted Kennedy dramatically walking onto the Senate floor. This isn’t ancient history. This is this year! If we’re going to have a debate, let’s debate our actual positions.
- Obama clearly embraced Baucus’ notion of putting a fee or tax on insurance plans. That’s new. It’s also lame.
- “I think [President Bush’s malpractice reform pilot program is] a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.” Well, that’s one way to take action even if the chances of getting substantial tort reform into the bill remain miniscule!
- The entire last section on “the character of our country.” If Obama succeeds in this legislative adventure, doubtlessly those paragraphs, and the inspiration of Ted Kennedy’s last letter on health care will be studied for years to come.
So yes, there was plenty new. Some specifics, some vague notions, some good ideas, some bad, and some downright inspiring. The only question is whether the efforts to finally reform health care and reaffirm the social justice character of our country will take new energy from this night. In this, as in most things, words can inspire, but ‘tis deeds that must win the prize.
(Photo credit: The Official White House Photostream on Flickr.)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
What's In It for Me? (At $45,000 a Year.)
-
Then There Were Two - Senate HELP Votes Bill Out of Committee
-
CBO-KAY! Senate HELP Bill Rebounds
Comments (42)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Tim has been an online organizer and blogger on health care policy for the Obama for America campaign (during the primaries) and currently for the Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, a labor union for intern and resident doctors. Views expressed here are Tim's, and don't represent the positions of CIR or SEIU.
Featured Health Care Actions
-
-
-
Joe Lieberman: Don’t You Dare
2879 People
-
Joe Lieberman: Don’t You Dare
One last note for my patient readers -- shorter posts tomorrow, I promise!
Posted by Timothy Foley on 09/09/2009 @ 11:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I love the fact that the young will now have to pay for insurance. It's about time they took some responsibility. The most they could be charged a month would be $100 and it would help defray the huge bills older folks are running up:)
Posted by M Arnest on 09/10/2009 @ 09:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for outlining the 9 points. I am curious what you think of social justice in terms of forcing everybody to have insurance? Our family has not been forced out of insurance. We made a decision not to have it. We save what would be our premiums, pay cash for our medical care (which makes it much cheaper!) and have extra to help those in need. We have taken responsibility and have not added any expense to premiums or government funds. So that should be taken away?
Posted by david zellers on 09/10/2009 @ 07:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't immediately recognize this as a social justice issue so much as an economic one.
Paying cash for your medical care may be cheaper in the short run, but it also depends on a factor out of your control -- that neither you nor a member of your family (God forbid) comes down with a catastrophic illness or injury. At that point, you will be unable to pay for the full cost of your care unless you're independently wealthy, no matter how savvy a negotiator and shopper you may be. Thanks to no exclusions on the basis of pre-existing conditions, you'll be able to purchase a plan to cover the rest of the cost. But if the catastrophic illness is resolved within that year, you could also then dump your insurance plan and go back to paying out of pocket. You will have paid $12,000 (to take a number out of a hat) to receive $50,000 worth of care. It's great for you, but more than a little unfair for those also in your plan who have been diligently paying. More to the point, if lots of people did the same thing, the insurance plan would be incapable of sustaining itself.
That's the point behind the requirement to buy insurance. Even still, you will still have the right to walk away from the insurance industry entirely and take the penalty. In the House bill, you'd pay something like 3% of your income. No one would stop you. But there have to be repercussions to that choice to prevent gaming the system in a way that fundamentally undermines everyone else's security.
Posted by Timothy Foley on 09/10/2009 @ 10:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
okay
Posted by rajesh prabhu on 09/10/2009 @ 12:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
why shorter?
"instead came up with private vs. public colleges."
This caused some chuckles in my house b/c in the NYT yesterday, Leonhardt wrote about public universities failing to graduate their kids. It's not as much an indictment of the public model as it is an indictment of failing to fund a public model but that argument resonates with the health care issue as well. If we don't let the public plan option be a public plan option, it's not going to do what it's supposed to.
If you feel like writing about why the fees on insurance companies, pharms and medical device manufacturers is a lame idea, I'll be glad to read it. If you did already, then toss us a link.
Posted by robin stelly on 09/10/2009 @ 06:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I did, but it's a smaller part of longer posts. I'll write something just on this topic tomorrow.
Posted by Timothy Foley on 09/10/2009 @ 10:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Regarding point #2 on the effectiveness of subsidizing high risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions, see this report from the Commonwealth Fund:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Pollitz_highriskpools_875.pdf
In 2002, Bush tried giving away $40 million in grants to high-risk pools "as part of the Bush Administration's broad strategy for expanding access to health care for the more than 40 million Americans without health insurance." (no, I'm not kidding.)
The results? States used them to temporarily regain pool solvency. So 178,000 total enrollees across the country still pay 125-200% of normal premiums and most risk pools remain closed to new applicants.
If you substitute "state-run co-op" for "state high-risk pool" it's also a great crystal ball for the go-to anti-public option solution.
Posted by Gillian Hubble on 09/10/2009 @ 08:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's a good report, Gillian. Do you think that if the idea were temporary, more strictly administered and federally based, then it might work?
State-based solutions aren't going to work. We don't have to look any further than Medicaid to see that.
Posted by robin stelly on 09/10/2009 @ 09:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Robin--that's a great question. Without seeing the specifics in the proposal, I'm not sure exactly what they have in mind.
At least on a federal basis there is some economy of scale and successful experience administering a large-scale insurance plan. But we're still talking about a high-risk population that costs more to insure because it requires more, and more expensive, care. There aren't any young, healthy, low-use plan members to distribute the risk and make the plan cost-effective (like Mike pointed out!)
Basically it's a non-Medicare eligible, Medicare-like population. So if you take the Medicare population and put it in the private insurance market, it's much more expensive to insure due to higher administrative costs, the profit motive (or surplus in the non-profit world), and higher provider reimbursement rates.
Unfortunately, it's most likely going to continue to be a) financially out of reach for most high-risk people who are eligible, and b) a difficult plan to keep solvent.
Posted by Gillian Hubble on 09/10/2009 @ 10:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Basically it's a non-Medicare eligible, Medicare-like population. So if you take the Medicare population and put it in the private insurance market, it's much more expensive to insure due to higher administrative costs, the profit motive (or surplus in the non-profit world), and higher provider reimbursement rates."
Are they putting them in the individual market or creating a marketplace out of them? Really, why not just add them to Medicare? We still have the cost of care issue but folding them into Medicare has to make the most sense from an administrative cost standpoint. After the exchange opens (and if it's not destroyed for the sake of compromise) they'd move over there. How many people are we talking about, by the way? Anyone know?
Posted by robin stelly on 09/10/2009 @ 02:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm all for adding risk pool members to Medicare, but I think it's a political poison pill :)
I just found this NPR article explaining McCain's risk pool expansion proposal during the presidential campaign:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95157363
Basically it's the Bush plan on steroids; subsidize existing state-based risk pools by as much as $15-20 billion. These pools act as very expensive group insurance, self-insured through the state and administered by a large private insurer.
NPR estimates 300,000 are enrolled in risk pools currently. It's impossible to know how many more are eligible, but if we extrapolate the 36% from a July 2009 study that were denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions to 46 million uninsured, a high estimate could be 16.6 million?
Anybody else have a guess?
Posted by Gillian Hubble on 09/10/2009 @ 05:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very good point Robin. Maybe Medicaid would be replaced? After all, the states get a large portion of there funding for Medicaid from the federal government.
Posted by James Turner on 09/15/2009 @ 06:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Depending on the state of the economy, a tax credit might not be the best mechanism for subsidizing care. Consumers would be parting with money during the tax year, lowering their disposable income and decreasing purchases, only to find when they file returns that their tax buden is decreased and/ or refund increased. Such refunds would simply be rolled into current premium payments. A year of lost consumption by several million people is not a good thing.
Posted by Harold Lewis on 09/10/2009 @ 10:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about this site:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Thanks!
Posted by Michelle Chon on 09/10/2009 @ 02:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think should kick the ass of the senator that called him a liar. Knowing he was trying to tell the truth and the senate is the one putting out the lies. Trying to hold on to the millions given to them ever year by opponents of health care for all. For reasons of pure greed they contend we should let one in four suffer. And the rest of the non rich losing everything they to pay for $15 aspirin while in the hospital.
I know they are rich but how do they sleep at night????
CFH
Posted by Cherokee Fred Jesus on 09/10/2009 @ 06:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with Cherokee. Joe Wilson, you shouted 'you lie,' seriously needs his ass kicked. He's an insurance industry ho (no disrespect to sex workers) and a former aide to racist Strom Thurmond.
The President hit a grand slam with his speech. Wilson proved that the hardcore opposition has more resemblance to television wrestlers than anyone worthy of being heard.
Hopefully the great speech, and lowly outburst of Wilson, ensured the passing of public option. We need to comment everywhere. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 09/10/2009 @ 07:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Tim
Something has been bothering me lately.
People keep trying to appeal to the seniors as if they are totally self-centered.
Don't these seniors have children and grand children who are struggling with health insurance issues. My wife and I are approaching Medicare age and we observe our children struggling with health insurance issues.
I'm not sure how you make that appeal but it needs to be made.
Posted by james mcgee on 09/10/2009 @ 08:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think many seniors are actually passionately for reform. I sat on a panel tonight with a 78 year-young lady who proclaimed that she loved being on Medicare so much, she wanted everyone to have it. Altruism isn't checked at the door at age 65.
Seniors aren't a monolithic group. Some are for reform. Many are against it -- most of them are against it for the same reasons any other person is. But they're also not alone in presuming that any reform means their own quality of care will go down. For some reason, they respond slightly better to fear campaigns than others -- that's what the polling shows.
It's also good politics to make the case that a suggested change is not just good in general, but good for you. In the case of health reform, that happens to also be true -- the doughnut hole in Part D will be partially filled, and Medicare will be shored up. If you can make the pitch, and you know opponents are appealing to the baser fears of the same segment of the populace, you may as well make the pitch.
Posted by Timothy Foley on 09/10/2009 @ 10:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Not the case in the Villages of Florida. We are hard pressed to find a person who supports the president's new plan.
Posted by James Turner on 09/14/2009 @ 04:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Because they support Medicare for all?
Posted by james mcgee on 09/14/2009 @ 05:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
From the deletion of comments that are not in complete agreement with you Timothy, I see that any intelligent discussion of this issue critical to the future of the entire nation will continue to be retoric. When we can reduce cost. Medicine is 16% of GDP...Defense is 6% of GDP...Medicine is important, why is it so big of a slice of the nations economy? We have all seen the effects of what happened to car insurance when mandated by law what was to reduce cost...
Posted by Frank Nette on 09/12/2009 @ 07:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very true. The government has a big purse so beggars will be scrambling to get into it.
Posted by M Arnest on 09/16/2009 @ 03:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wouldn't it be easier and less expensive if we just had one system for public health care called Medicare for All. Our Medicare system is already in place, it would just need to be expanded and changed a bit to include all people.
We all pay a fee just like we do on our taxes for our police, firefighters, schools for our kids, public state colleges and universities, money to our cities and our counties, (oh my gosh, they are socialist too???) and to the federal government to pay the salaries of congress representatives (another socialist sect of our society, ooohhh) etc.
Those people who are paying for insurance right now, they tell us it's the majority in america, will save most of that... more money in their pockets, businesses will do better and pay employees a better wage not struggling with the excess of insurance in our system as it is now
Whether it is on our federal taxes or other system of paying for the services that we so desire, especially in case of an accident where our house is on fire and we watch it burn to the ground because the private company we paid for that service decides the area we live in is too risky and costly for them to provide private firefighters, rather than having our community firefighters come to our rescue quickly... I suggest we all just pay a fee, reduced for those having difficulty, and received the care we need when we need it from our chosen physicians that decide what care we need. Just like the ol' country doc. The doctor bills for his/services but is in private practice. The hospital bills for their services, but they are private. All the people working for those insurance companies will have plenty of jobs similar to what they have working for Medicare for all. Even nurse educators will have jobs for the prevention side of our Medicare for all.
And guess what, one way to pay for Medicare for All, would be to shut down governement run Veterans Administration Hospitals, because it won't be needed! Billions of dollars going into Medicar for all, paying for all those private hospitals, private doctors ets. Simple down. I guess insurance companies don't like this plan, cause the only one's out of a job will be the big CEOs. They just might have to take a job like you and me.
Another area would be the savings of providing that expensive health care to all those legislators, they will pay what everyone pays and the governement can use that excess in the Medicare for All plan. Of course I could suggest that we leave Iraq, stop our wars, and put that money into health care. Spend some of it on peace negotiators, lots of them placed aroudn the world. Show that we ARE the greatest country, a peace loving country that takes care of it's citizens!
Posted by Jerri Bedell on 09/13/2009 @ 10:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have a serious issue with "high risk pools". It needs VERY careful definition of who would be a member, what the insurance would be, what program would be providing the insurance etc. Right now in many states, "high risk pool" means you pay out your wazoo to buy the crappiest level of Medicaid coverage AND pay copays to use it. That's worse than some of the stuff private insurance companies sell - and gets you access to worse providers.
How about our leaders grow a spine and admit to article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights before someone forces us to do so? We're the only "civilized" nation not a signatory and the only one not providing health care as a human right. What's done to certain groups - like the disabled - under our current system SHOULD be unconscionable. Yet insurance companies do it without blinking and our society and its leaders don't seem to care in the least.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 09/13/2009 @ 11:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, I agree Danetta. It is very unfair. Someone on a cane is ,without a doubt, a high risk for falls. It is much different from smoking, not exercising, or overeating. Same as for mental and developmental disabilities are far more apt for other injuries and Illness. Most of the high risk pools would be the disabled, weather it was preventable or not just from the way it sounds. And when you really need it, I gets much harder to afford. Plus my wife use to run everyday before work. After her accident she cannot stay on her feet long enough to get any exercise, therefore she has gained weight (even under doctor's care. Another flag due only to her disability). Keep her on her feet too long( to get her exercise) and she falls. She can't win with a piss on a person while they are down legislation. More of the same kind of benifit she has now (with just not covering what she needs).
It does strike a nerve when disability can lead to several other "high risk flagged" conditions.
Posted by Joe Ward on 09/13/2009 @ 09:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
wow, it's amazing how so many people get so many different things out of that speech. I heard the public option firmly and irrevocably on the table, "unless someone comes up with a better idea." I didn't hear anything about mandates and tax cuts, and I was hanging on every word. What is this? The Obama Quatraines? We are analysing his every word when it's all really very simple. We see and hear what we want to in him. All I know is a trigger is b.s. and co ops are chicken s*it.
Posted by CherokeeGirl for Change on 09/15/2009 @ 11:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So Cherokee, you are all for having to pay for health insurance. The President's plan will mandate everyone buy insurance and prove it at tax time or suffer a loss/penalty. A lot of folks can't afford to be forced to buy insurance. There goes my tax return.
I just want reform, not an expensive package that burdens us all.
Posted by James Turner on 09/15/2009 @ 06:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"A lot of folks can't afford to be forced to buy insurance. There goes my tax return."
Excellent point you just made, James. So just who is paying for those "folks" now that chose not to have health insurance?They cannot choose when they have a major accident either. I have no problem paying for it , or even mandated like car insurance. I don't even have a problem with paying more premiums than someone less advantaged. The whole thing is wanting it to work when you really need it. Why even have it if you can pay out of your pocket the whole time, until that one time where you really need it and none of it gives you all , or even any of what you need. Look how many of the low income t middle class now are milking your tax dollars because. They get a divorce and/or quit a job to qualify for the free Medicaid when they have no problem paying for insurance to begin with. I am quite sure that these people would stay married and keep a job otherwise. It is all too common when insurance does not work now.
If you cannot trust the Government , then really who can you trust to deliver it. Not the insurance companies.
Posted by Joe Ward on 09/15/2009 @ 09:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's not the president's plan till it hits his desk and the people approve of it first. The Baucus plan is a red herring, not worth anything to the people.
Posted by CherokeeGirl for Change on 09/16/2009 @ 02:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The public option isn't an option. The senate will never let it fly and they are the ones needed to pass legislation. We did get news about illegal aliens. The gang of six have incorporated mandatory ID check. This will cover the president and cut costs.
Posted by M Arnest on 09/15/2009 @ 05:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Who does the Senate work for? They are supposed to be serving the people, not corporate interests. Especially when that corporate interest is already eating up SEVENTEEN PERCENT of our GDP! No, you are incorrect sir. The public option will be in the final bill, you just watch and learn.
Posted by CherokeeGirl for Change on 09/15/2009 @ 05:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Anything without a public option is pointless and certainly is NOT reform. At least not effective reform.
For a good explanation of why, see this from a former Health Insurance Industry Executive: http://bit.ly/xVmLJ (that links to video from C-SPAN and an article at Huffington Post).
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 09/15/2009 @ 05:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I really don't care if there is a public option or not. I just know it is a major sticking point and we need health reform passed. You know, the public option is not some kind of free gift. People will still have to pay market prices to get health insurance. The government won't be handing out free health insurance. In addition, the option is market based. Besides, who will be watching Uncle Sam?
Posted by M Arnest on 09/15/2009 @ 05:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bravo Mike! Some folks seem to think the public option is some kind of magic bullet. It all equals out. We need a rational balanced congress. The option is a token we can give away to get done what needs to be done. It is win/win for all of us if people can get together on an issue and not dig in because they are expected to be on a side.
Posted by James Turner on 09/15/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That is why the public option is a NECESSITY and not really an OPTION. Anything else is really "insurance reform" and what we're getting is health insurance NOT health care. Speaking from experience, it is all too possible to have INSURANCE and NO access to care - at least not to the care you need, when you need it.
Seriously, watch the video and read the article over at HuffingtonPost about what a giveaway the proposal at Senate level is for the Insurance industry and any "mandate" to buy insurance is just going to be a bigger giveaway - along with being a huge boondoggle of the citizenry.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 09/15/2009 @ 06:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
okay, you now have two replies. Which one do you think really has your interests at heart? The one who downplays the public option or the other?
Posted by CherokeeGirl for Change on 09/16/2009 @ 02:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Paying cash for your medical care may be cheaper in the short run, but it also depends on a factor out of your control -- that neither you nor a member of your family (God forbid) comes down with a catastrophic illness or injury. At that point, you will be unable to pay for the full cost of your care"
If the rationale for forcing everyone to pay for insurance is that "you will be unable to pay for the full cost of your care" in a catastrophic situation, why wouldn't we force everyone to buy other insurances that cover Long Term Care or Life Insurance. Both of these situations can be much more costly to the public as the affected family would likely need public assistance to recover from the economic loss?
Just an idea.
Posted by Turk Fowler on 09/16/2009 @ 08:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One thing at a time.
Germany only implemented mandatory long term care insurance a few years ago.
Life insurance is a bit trickier. After all death costs you nothing, only your heirs.
But something to watch for - health insurance companies trying to attach life insurance proceeds.
Just a thought.
Posted by james mcgee on 09/16/2009 @ 10:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
TX Medicaid system only will help me NOW if I get pregnant. To me, I would rather support one person, rather than them and their child they cannot afford. For me to get pregnant would be an act of stupidity/desperation due to lack of health insurance. My severe Narcolepsy with Cataplexy, Fibromyalgia, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Chronic Lyme’s Disease, and Diabetes, I did NOTHING to contract. Pregnancy, except for cases of Rape/Incest is self-caused. Why only help the pregnant?
Posted by Rachel Russell on 09/16/2009 @ 12:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that the safety net of this nation is flat out discriminatory and particularly so against anyone who is childless without so much as a moment's pause to see if there are other factors - such as disabilities or chronic health problems - that might make them unable to work and thus NEED help beyond the ever popular with conservatives and "Doctor" Phil swift kick in the arse and a lecture about pulling oneself up by the proverbial bootstraps. Childless adults can't get cash aid - despite ever so obvious needs like dish soap and toilet paper which don't magically become options rather than necessities or easier to obtain just because of a lack of children. Then programs like Medically Needy People Medicaid (the category of Medicaid for the disabled and chronically ill) is technically an optional program and most of what it has to cover is also optional so even in states where it does exist, the "coverage" can be worse than pointless. Plus the income and asset limits for MNP Medicaid are even lower than those for regular Medicaid.
How are such as this even ALLOWED in our "civilized" society? I could *maybe* understand this if they could prove that each and every childless adult really was a Reaganesque "welfare queen" sitting on their sofa, eating bonbons and watching something like Oprah or Springer. However, that's far from the case and rather than preventing fraud, what they're doing is PUNISHING people who NEED help - like you and I - and pushing us further into poverty by "helping" us if they even bother to help at all.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 09/16/2009 @ 12:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Danetta, I so agree with you! And the statement you made "rather than preventing fraud, what they're doing is PUNISHING people who NEED help" I am a federal whistleblower reporting abuses at the local VA to our veterans and was fired for it. And so filed complaints of this abuse and my wrongful termination with the OSC, Offfice of Specia Counsel and just received their preliminary determination on both cases..even with the evidence I provided... they failed to "Substantiate"my claims. come to find out, that in thier 30 year history they have never found in favor of the whistleblower! They deemed that a patient that was left alone because the staff was removed by management to go to another floow, even when they were informed that the patient was a high risk for falls, and when the nurse returned the patient was on the floor... the OSC said they didn't deem that abuse because the patient was not injured. They refused to interview a veteran patient about a severe abuse he reported because the VA told the OSC he has bi-polar disease and therefore isn't competent to give accurate reports... which just isn't true. On and on and on... They didn't think it important or abusive when people were severely overmedicated with pain and bowel meds because there were no long term effects (even though these people were on a hospice unit and didn't live long after the abuses) and so they sent the physician to a 3 day retraining class. So there really seems to be no true effort, only outward appearance to deal with health care abuses, and therefore no one is being held accountable and they tell us the care in our Veterans system of health care is the best. hmmmm... I believe in our health care system today there is NO redress for those who have been abused, not served, or those that report these abuses. Sad for this country!
Posted by Jerri Bedell on 09/16/2009 @ 02:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.